Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 671

control, N = 341

treatment, N = 331

p-value2

age

67

50.77 ± 12.88 (25 - 74)

50.17 ± 13.49 (25 - 74)

51.38 ± 12.40 (31 - 72)

0.705

gender

67

0.856

f

46 (69%)

23 (68%)

23 (70%)

m

21 (31%)

11 (32%)

10 (30%)

occupation

67

0.922

day_training

1 (1.5%)

1 (2.9%)

0 (0%)

full_time

6 (9.0%)

4 (12%)

2 (6.1%)

homemaker

6 (9.0%)

3 (8.8%)

3 (9.1%)

other

2 (3.0%)

0 (0%)

2 (6.1%)

part_time

11 (16%)

5 (15%)

6 (18%)

retired

15 (22%)

7 (21%)

8 (24%)

self_employ

2 (3.0%)

1 (2.9%)

1 (3.0%)

student

1 (1.5%)

0 (0%)

1 (3.0%)

t_and_e

2 (3.0%)

1 (2.9%)

1 (3.0%)

unemploy

21 (31%)

12 (35%)

9 (27%)

marital

67

>0.999

cohabitation

1 (1.5%)

0 (0%)

1 (3.0%)

divore

7 (10%)

4 (12%)

3 (9.1%)

married

14 (21%)

7 (21%)

7 (21%)

none

39 (58%)

20 (59%)

19 (58%)

seperation

3 (4.5%)

2 (5.9%)

1 (3.0%)

widow

3 (4.5%)

1 (2.9%)

2 (6.1%)

edu

67

0.997

bachelor

19 (28%)

9 (26%)

10 (30%)

diploma

12 (18%)

7 (21%)

5 (15%)

hd_ad

3 (4.5%)

2 (5.9%)

1 (3.0%)

postgraduate

6 (9.0%)

3 (8.8%)

3 (9.1%)

primary

5 (7.5%)

2 (5.9%)

3 (9.1%)

secondary_1_3

6 (9.0%)

3 (8.8%)

3 (9.1%)

secondary_4_5

14 (21%)

7 (21%)

7 (21%)

secondary_6_7

2 (3.0%)

1 (2.9%)

1 (3.0%)

fam_income

67

0.822

10001_12000

4 (6.0%)

1 (2.9%)

3 (9.1%)

12001_14000

4 (6.0%)

2 (5.9%)

2 (6.1%)

14001_16000

5 (7.5%)

2 (5.9%)

3 (9.1%)

16001_18000

2 (3.0%)

1 (2.9%)

1 (3.0%)

18001_20000

3 (4.5%)

3 (8.8%)

0 (0%)

20001_above

10 (15%)

6 (18%)

4 (12%)

2001_4000

9 (13%)

6 (18%)

3 (9.1%)

4001_6000

9 (13%)

4 (12%)

5 (15%)

6001_8000

6 (9.0%)

3 (8.8%)

3 (9.1%)

8001_10000

6 (9.0%)

2 (5.9%)

4 (12%)

below_2000

9 (13%)

4 (12%)

5 (15%)

medication

67

57 (85%)

30 (88%)

27 (82%)

0.512

onset_duration

67

15.03 ± 11.66 (0 - 56)

16.60 ± 12.84 (1 - 56)

13.41 ± 10.23 (0 - 35)

0.266

onset_age

67

35.74 ± 14.16 (14 - 64)

33.57 ± 12.91 (14 - 58)

37.97 ± 15.21 (15 - 64)

0.206

1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%)

2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test

Measurement

Table

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 671

control, N = 341

treatment, N = 331

p-value2

recovery_stage_a

67

3.16 ± 1.25 (1 - 5)

3.18 ± 1.29 (1 - 5)

3.15 ± 1.23 (1 - 5)

0.936

recovery_stage_b

67

17.91 ± 2.65 (9 - 23)

17.76 ± 2.69 (9 - 23)

18.06 ± 2.65 (13 - 23)

0.651

ras_confidence

67

30.25 ± 4.80 (19 - 43)

29.56 ± 4.19 (19 - 40)

30.97 ± 5.33 (20 - 43)

0.232

ras_willingness

67

12.03 ± 1.96 (7 - 15)

11.85 ± 1.84 (9 - 15)

12.21 ± 2.09 (7 - 15)

0.458

ras_goal

67

17.48 ± 3.00 (12 - 24)

17.41 ± 2.99 (12 - 24)

17.55 ± 3.05 (12 - 24)

0.857

ras_reliance

67

13.19 ± 2.87 (8 - 20)

12.88 ± 2.64 (8 - 18)

13.52 ± 3.09 (8 - 20)

0.370

ras_domination

67

10.00 ± 2.21 (3 - 15)

10.44 ± 1.99 (6 - 15)

9.55 ± 2.36 (3 - 14)

0.097

symptom

67

30.48 ± 9.93 (14 - 56)

31.26 ± 9.78 (14 - 52)

29.67 ± 10.16 (15 - 56)

0.514

slof_work

67

22.33 ± 4.80 (10 - 30)

22.32 ± 4.35 (15 - 30)

22.33 ± 5.30 (10 - 30)

0.993

slof_relationship

67

25.54 ± 6.01 (11 - 35)

25.09 ± 6.14 (13 - 35)

26.00 ± 5.92 (11 - 35)

0.539

satisfaction

67

20.49 ± 6.87 (5 - 32)

18.97 ± 6.50 (5 - 29)

22.06 ± 6.98 (5 - 32)

0.065

mhc_emotional

67

11.16 ± 3.82 (3 - 18)

10.74 ± 3.35 (3 - 17)

11.61 ± 4.26 (4 - 18)

0.355

mhc_social

67

14.69 ± 5.16 (6 - 26)

14.94 ± 5.01 (7 - 26)

14.42 ± 5.37 (6 - 26)

0.685

mhc_psychological

67

22.01 ± 5.92 (6 - 36)

21.53 ± 5.33 (10 - 33)

22.52 ± 6.52 (6 - 36)

0.500

resilisnce

67

16.58 ± 4.62 (6 - 27)

16.21 ± 4.42 (6 - 24)

16.97 ± 4.86 (7 - 27)

0.503

social_provision

67

13.67 ± 3.00 (5 - 20)

13.24 ± 2.59 (8 - 20)

14.12 ± 3.34 (5 - 20)

0.229

els_value_living

67

17.25 ± 2.99 (5 - 25)

16.62 ± 2.40 (12 - 22)

17.91 ± 3.40 (5 - 25)

0.077

els_life_fulfill

67

12.79 ± 3.30 (4 - 20)

11.79 ± 3.04 (5 - 17)

13.82 ± 3.28 (4 - 20)

0.011

els

67

30.04 ± 5.62 (9 - 45)

28.41 ± 4.45 (20 - 36)

31.73 ± 6.25 (9 - 45)

0.015

social_connect

67

27.22 ± 9.24 (8 - 48)

28.09 ± 8.11 (8 - 45)

26.33 ± 10.33 (8 - 48)

0.441

shs_agency

67

14.34 ± 4.89 (3 - 24)

13.68 ± 4.54 (3 - 21)

15.03 ± 5.21 (3 - 24)

0.260

shs_pathway

67

16.57 ± 3.96 (4 - 24)

16.09 ± 3.82 (8 - 24)

17.06 ± 4.11 (4 - 23)

0.319

shs

67

30.91 ± 8.36 (7 - 47)

29.76 ± 7.99 (13 - 45)

32.09 ± 8.70 (7 - 47)

0.258

esteem

67

12.64 ± 1.46 (10 - 18)

12.76 ± 1.50 (10 - 18)

12.52 ± 1.44 (10 - 16)

0.490

mlq_search

67

14.88 ± 3.43 (3 - 21)

14.85 ± 3.20 (6 - 21)

14.91 ± 3.69 (3 - 21)

0.947

mlq_presence

67

13.46 ± 4.16 (3 - 21)

13.38 ± 3.53 (5 - 20)

13.55 ± 4.77 (3 - 21)

0.874

mlq

67

28.34 ± 6.79 (6 - 42)

28.24 ± 6.03 (12 - 40)

28.45 ± 7.60 (6 - 42)

0.896

empower

67

19.49 ± 4.17 (6 - 28)

19.03 ± 3.84 (11 - 24)

19.97 ± 4.49 (6 - 28)

0.360

ismi_resistance

67

14.58 ± 2.75 (5 - 20)

14.26 ± 2.29 (11 - 19)

14.91 ± 3.17 (5 - 20)

0.342

ismi_discrimation

67

11.39 ± 3.28 (5 - 19)

12.38 ± 2.81 (5 - 18)

10.36 ± 3.46 (5 - 19)

0.011

sss_affective

67

10.09 ± 3.88 (3 - 18)

10.74 ± 3.41 (3 - 18)

9.42 ± 4.27 (3 - 18)

0.169

sss_behavior

67

9.81 ± 4.01 (3 - 18)

10.65 ± 3.91 (3 - 18)

8.94 ± 3.99 (3 - 18)

0.081

sss_cognitive

67

8.34 ± 4.06 (3 - 18)

8.79 ± 4.24 (3 - 18)

7.88 ± 3.88 (3 - 18)

0.360

sss

67

28.24 ± 11.09 (9 - 54)

30.18 ± 10.35 (9 - 54)

26.24 ± 11.62 (9 - 54)

0.148

1Mean ± SD (Range)

2Two Sample t-test

Plot

Data analysis

Table

Group

Characteristic

Beta

SE1

95% CI1

p-value

recovery_stage_a

(Intercept)

3.18

0.211

2.76, 3.59

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.025

0.300

-0.613, 0.563

0.934

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.299

0.319

-0.327, 0.925

0.353

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.071

0.447

-0.806, 0.948

0.874

Pseudo R square

0.017

recovery_stage_b

(Intercept)

17.8

0.466

16.9, 18.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.296

0.664

-1.01, 1.60

0.657

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.039

0.645

-1.30, 1.23

0.952

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.480

0.903

-1.29, 2.25

0.597

Pseudo R square

0.010

ras_confidence

(Intercept)

29.6

0.865

27.9, 31.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.41

1.233

-1.00, 3.83

0.256

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.377

0.908

-1.40, 2.16

0.681

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.104

1.269

-2.38, 2.59

0.935

Pseudo R square

0.022

ras_willingness

(Intercept)

11.9

0.341

11.2, 12.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.359

0.486

-0.593, 1.31

0.462

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.800

0.331

-1.45, -0.150

0.021

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.622

0.463

-0.286, 1.53

0.187

Pseudo R square

0.038

ras_goal

(Intercept)

17.4

0.544

16.3, 18.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.134

0.775

-1.38, 1.65

0.863

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.726

0.603

-1.91, 0.457

0.236

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.30

0.843

-0.349, 2.96

0.130

Pseudo R square

0.018

ras_reliance

(Intercept)

12.9

0.482

11.9, 13.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.633

0.687

-0.713, 1.98

0.360

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.239

0.427

-0.597, 1.08

0.578

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.725

0.596

-0.442, 1.89

0.231

Pseudo R square

0.038

ras_domination

(Intercept)

10.4

0.376

9.70, 11.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.896

0.536

-1.95, 0.155

0.099

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.397

0.497

-1.37, 0.578

0.429

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.18

0.696

-0.184, 2.54

0.097

Pseudo R square

0.030

symptom

(Intercept)

31.3

1.703

27.9, 34.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.60

2.427

-6.35, 3.16

0.512

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.490

1.189

-2.82, 1.84

0.682

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.265

1.659

-3.52, 2.99

0.874

Pseudo R square

0.008

slof_work

(Intercept)

22.3

0.836

20.7, 24.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.010

1.191

-2.32, 2.34

0.993

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.465

0.679

-1.80, 0.866

0.498

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.859

0.948

-2.72, 1.00

0.371

Pseudo R square

0.010

slof_relationship

(Intercept)

25.1

1.024

23.1, 27.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.912

1.460

-1.95, 3.77

0.534

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-1.35

0.953

-3.22, 0.513

0.164

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.692

1.330

-1.92, 3.30

0.606

Pseudo R square

0.016

satisfaction

(Intercept)

19.0

1.189

16.6, 21.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

3.09

1.695

-0.231, 6.41

0.072

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.790

1.310

-1.78, 3.36

0.550

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.63

1.830

-5.21, 1.96

0.379

Pseudo R square

0.035

mhc_emotional

(Intercept)

10.7

0.650

9.46, 12.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.871

0.926

-0.945, 2.69

0.350

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.524

0.598

-0.648, 1.70

0.387

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.12

0.835

-2.76, 0.516

0.188

Pseudo R square

0.009

mhc_social

(Intercept)

14.9

0.918

13.1, 16.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.517

1.309

-3.08, 2.05

0.694

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.11

0.984

-0.815, 3.04

0.265

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.35

1.375

-4.05, 1.34

0.332

Pseudo R square

0.013

mhc_psychological

(Intercept)

21.5

1.067

19.4, 23.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.986

1.520

-1.99, 3.97

0.519

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.698

1.101

-1.46, 2.86

0.530

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.92

1.538

-4.93, 1.10

0.220

Pseudo R square

0.006

resilisnce

(Intercept)

16.2

0.756

14.7, 17.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.764

1.077

-1.35, 2.87

0.480

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.349

0.742

-1.11, 1.80

0.641

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.311

1.037

-1.72, 2.34

0.766

Pseudo R square

0.013

social_provision

(Intercept)

13.2

0.499

12.3, 14.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.886

0.711

-0.508, 2.28

0.217

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.388

0.534

-1.43, 0.659

0.472

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.187

0.746

-1.27, 1.65

0.803

Pseudo R square

0.028

els_value_living

(Intercept)

16.6

0.507

15.6, 17.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.29

0.723

-0.125, 2.71

0.078

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.413

0.509

-0.584, 1.41

0.422

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.332

0.711

-1.73, 1.06

0.643

Pseudo R square

0.041

els_life_fulfill

(Intercept)

11.8

0.526

10.8, 12.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

2.02

0.750

0.554, 3.49

0.009

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.971

0.531

-0.070, 2.01

0.076

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.770

0.742

-2.22, 0.684

0.306

Pseudo R square

0.087

els

(Intercept)

28.4

0.923

26.6, 30.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

3.32

1.316

0.737, 5.89

0.014

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.33

0.862

-0.363, 3.02

0.132

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.03

1.204

-3.39, 1.33

0.398

Pseudo R square

0.078

social_connect

(Intercept)

28.1

1.554

25.0, 31.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.75

2.214

-6.09, 2.58

0.431

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.138

1.233

-2.28, 2.55

0.911

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.030

1.721

-3.34, 3.40

0.986

Pseudo R square

0.009

shs_agency

(Intercept)

13.7

0.837

12.0, 15.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.35

1.193

-0.984, 3.69

0.260

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.189

0.793

-1.36, 1.74

0.812

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.446

1.107

-1.72, 2.62

0.689

Pseudo R square

0.026

shs_pathway

(Intercept)

16.1

0.668

14.8, 17.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.972

0.952

-0.894, 2.84

0.311

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.487

0.565

-0.621, 1.60

0.394

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.648

0.789

-2.20, 0.899

0.417

Pseudo R square

0.011

shs

(Intercept)

29.8

1.414

27.0, 32.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

2.33

2.015

-1.62, 6.28

0.252

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.637

1.198

-1.71, 2.98

0.598

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.144

1.672

-3.42, 3.13

0.932

Pseudo R square

0.020

esteem

(Intercept)

12.8

0.239

12.3, 13.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.250

0.340

-0.917, 0.418

0.465

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.273

0.387

-0.484, 1.03

0.485

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.035

0.542

-1.10, 1.03

0.950

Pseudo R square

0.016

mlq_search

(Intercept)

14.9

0.590

13.7, 16.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.056

0.840

-1.59, 1.70

0.947

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.135

0.744

-1.59, 1.32

0.857

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.016

1.040

-2.06, 2.02

0.988

Pseudo R square

0.000

mlq_presence

(Intercept)

13.4

0.699

12.0, 14.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.163

0.996

-1.79, 2.12

0.870

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.086

0.831

-1.54, 1.72

0.918

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.010

1.162

-2.29, 2.27

0.993

Pseudo R square

0.000

mlq

(Intercept)

28.2

1.174

25.9, 30.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.219

1.673

-3.06, 3.50

0.896

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.060

1.420

-2.84, 2.72

0.967

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.026

1.984

-3.92, 3.86

0.990

Pseudo R square

0.000

empower

(Intercept)

19.0

0.689

17.7, 20.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.940

0.981

-0.983, 2.86

0.341

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.180

0.651

-1.10, 1.46

0.784

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.903

0.910

-2.69, 0.880

0.327

Pseudo R square

0.010

ismi_resistance

(Intercept)

14.3

0.443

13.4, 15.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.644

0.632

-0.593, 1.88

0.310

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.461

0.620

-0.754, 1.68

0.461

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.639

0.867

-2.34, 1.06

0.465

Pseudo R square

0.011

ismi_discrimation

(Intercept)

12.4

0.547

11.3, 13.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-2.02

0.779

-3.55, -0.491

0.012

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.897

0.544

-1.96, 0.169

0.107

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.46

0.760

-0.030, 2.95

0.062

Pseudo R square

0.065

sss_affective

(Intercept)

10.7

0.639

9.48, 12.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.31

0.910

-3.09, 0.473

0.154

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.075

0.554

-1.16, 1.01

0.893

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.765

0.774

-2.28, 0.752

0.329

Pseudo R square

0.049

sss_behavior

(Intercept)

10.6

0.656

9.36, 11.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.71

0.935

-3.54, 0.124

0.072

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.112

0.626

-1.34, 1.11

0.859

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.567

0.874

-2.28, 1.15

0.521

Pseudo R square

0.063

sss_cognitive

(Intercept)

8.79

0.684

7.45, 10.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.915

0.974

-2.82, 0.994

0.350

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.866

0.563

-0.238, 1.97

0.133

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.64

0.786

-3.18, -0.097

0.044

Pseudo R square

0.042

sss

(Intercept)

30.2

1.830

26.6, 33.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-3.93

2.607

-9.04, 1.18

0.136

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.773

1.448

-2.07, 3.61

0.597

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-3.05

2.021

-7.02, 0.908

0.139

Pseudo R square

0.058

1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval

Text

recovery_stage_a

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.32) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.18 (95% CI [2.76, 3.59], t(96) = 15.08, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.61, 0.56], t(96) = -0.08, p = 0.934; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.46])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.93], t(96) = 0.94, p = 0.349; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.76])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.81, 0.95], t(96) = 0.16, p = 0.873; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.77])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

recovery_stage_b

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.45) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.76 (95% CI [16.85, 18.68], t(96) = 38.14, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-1.01, 1.60], t(96) = 0.45, p = 0.656; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.59])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-1.30, 1.23], t(96) = -0.06, p = 0.952; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.45])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.48, 95% CI [-1.29, 2.25], t(96) = 0.53, p = 0.595; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.83])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_confidence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.56 (95% CI [27.86, 31.25], t(96) = 34.17, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.41, 95% CI [-1.00, 3.83], t(96) = 1.14, p = 0.252; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.76])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-1.40, 2.16], t(96) = 0.41, p = 0.678; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.43])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-2.38, 2.59], t(96) = 0.08, p = 0.935; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.52])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_willingness

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.85 (95% CI [11.18, 12.52], t(96) = 34.76, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.59, 1.31], t(96) = 0.74, p = 0.460; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.66])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.80, 95% CI [-1.45, -0.15], t(96) = -2.41, p = 0.016; Std. beta = -0.40, 95% CI [-0.73, -0.08])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.62, 95% CI [-0.29, 1.53], t(96) = 1.34, p = 0.179; Std. beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.77])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_goal

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.41 (95% CI [16.35, 18.48], t(96) = 32.03, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-1.38, 1.65], t(96) = 0.17, p = 0.863; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.52])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.73, 95% CI [-1.91, 0.46], t(96) = -1.20, p = 0.229; Std. beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.14])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.30, 95% CI [-0.35, 2.96], t(96) = 1.55, p = 0.122; Std. beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.92])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_reliance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.80) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.88 (95% CI [11.94, 13.83], t(96) = 26.74, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.63, 95% CI [-0.71, 1.98], t(96) = 0.92, p = 0.357; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.68])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.60, 1.08], t(96) = 0.56, p = 0.575; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.37])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.73, 95% CI [-0.44, 1.89], t(96) = 1.22, p = 0.223; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.65])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_domination

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.52) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.44 (95% CI [9.70, 11.18], t(96) = 27.74, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.90, 95% CI [-1.95, 0.16], t(96) = -1.67, p = 0.095; Std. beta = -0.41, 95% CI [-0.88, 0.07])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.40, 95% CI [-1.37, 0.58], t(96) = -0.80, p = 0.424; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.62, 0.26])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.18, 95% CI [-0.18, 2.54], t(96) = 1.70, p = 0.090; Std. beta = 0.54, 95% CI [-0.08, 1.16])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

symptom

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.88) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.28e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 31.26 (95% CI [27.93, 34.60], t(96) = 18.36, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.60, 95% CI [-6.35, 3.16], t(96) = -0.66, p = 0.510; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.31])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.49, 95% CI [-2.82, 1.84], t(96) = -0.41, p = 0.680; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.18])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-3.52, 2.99], t(96) = -0.16, p = 0.873; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.30])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_work

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.83) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.32 (95% CI [20.69, 23.96], t(96) = 26.71, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 9.80e-03, 95% CI [-2.32, 2.34], t(96) = 8.23e-03, p = 0.993; Std. beta = 2.00e-03, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.48])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.47, 95% CI [-1.80, 0.87], t(96) = -0.68, p = 0.493; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.18])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.86, 95% CI [-2.72, 1.00], t(96) = -0.91, p = 0.365; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.20])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_relationship

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 25.09 (95% CI [23.08, 27.10], t(96) = 24.49, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.91, 95% CI [-1.95, 3.77], t(96) = 0.62, p = 0.532; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.65])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.35, 95% CI [-3.22, 0.51], t(96) = -1.42, p = 0.155; Std. beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.09])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.69, 95% CI [-1.92, 3.30], t(96) = 0.52, p = 0.603; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.57])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

satisfaction

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.97 (95% CI [16.64, 21.30], t(96) = 15.95, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 3.09, 95% CI [-0.23, 6.41], t(96) = 1.82, p = 0.068; Std. beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.92])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.79, 95% CI [-1.78, 3.36], t(96) = 0.60, p = 0.547; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.48])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.63, 95% CI [-5.21, 1.96], t(96) = -0.89, p = 0.374; Std. beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.75, 0.28])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_emotional

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.06e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.74 (95% CI [9.46, 12.01], t(96) = 16.51, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.87, 95% CI [-0.95, 2.69], t(96) = 0.94, p = 0.347; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.72])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.52, 95% CI [-0.65, 1.70], t(96) = 0.88, p = 0.381; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.46])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.12, 95% CI [-2.76, 0.52], t(96) = -1.34, p = 0.180; Std. beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.74, 0.14])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_social

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.94 (95% CI [13.14, 16.74], t(96) = 16.27, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.52, 95% CI [-3.08, 2.05], t(96) = -0.40, p = 0.693; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.39])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.11, 95% CI [-0.82, 3.04], t(96) = 1.13, p = 0.258; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.57])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.35, 95% CI [-4.05, 1.34], t(96) = -0.98, p = 0.326; Std. beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-0.76, 0.25])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_psychological

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.47e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.53 (95% CI [19.44, 23.62], t(96) = 20.18, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.99, 95% CI [-1.99, 3.97], t(96) = 0.65, p = 0.517; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.64])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.70, 95% CI [-1.46, 2.86], t(96) = 0.63, p = 0.526; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.46])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.92, 95% CI [-4.93, 1.10], t(96) = -1.25, p = 0.213; Std. beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.79, 0.18])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

resilisnce

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.21 (95% CI [14.72, 17.69], t(96) = 21.44, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.76, 95% CI [-1.35, 2.87], t(96) = 0.71, p = 0.478; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.66])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-1.11, 1.80], t(96) = 0.47, p = 0.638; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.41])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-1.72, 2.34], t(96) = 0.30, p = 0.764; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.54])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_provision

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.24 (95% CI [12.26, 14.21], t(96) = 26.51, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.89, 95% CI [-0.51, 2.28], t(96) = 1.25, p = 0.213; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.78])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-1.43, 0.66], t(96) = -0.73, p = 0.468; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.23])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-1.27, 1.65], t(96) = 0.25, p = 0.802; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.57])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_value_living

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.62 (95% CI [15.62, 17.61], t(96) = 32.77, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.29, 95% CI [-0.12, 2.71], t(96) = 1.79, p = 0.074; Std. beta = 0.43, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.90])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.58, 1.41], t(96) = 0.81, p = 0.417; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.47])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.33, 95% CI [-1.73, 1.06], t(96) = -0.47, p = 0.641; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.35])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_life_fulfill

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.09. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.79 (95% CI [10.76, 12.83], t(96) = 22.41, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 2.02, 95% CI [0.55, 3.49], t(96) = 2.70, p = 0.007; Std. beta = 0.64, 95% CI [0.18, 1.11])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.97, 95% CI [-0.07, 2.01], t(96) = 1.83, p = 0.068; Std. beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.64])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.77, 95% CI [-2.22, 0.68], t(96) = -1.04, p = 0.299; Std. beta = -0.24, 95% CI [-0.71, 0.22])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.08. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.41 (95% CI [26.60, 30.22], t(96) = 30.77, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 3.32, 95% CI [0.74, 5.89], t(96) = 2.52, p = 0.012; Std. beta = 0.59, 95% CI [0.13, 1.05])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.33, 95% CI [-0.36, 3.02], t(96) = 1.54, p = 0.124; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.54])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.03, 95% CI [-3.39, 1.33], t(96) = -0.85, p = 0.393; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.61, 0.24])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_connect

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.84) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.31e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.09 (95% CI [25.04, 31.13], t(96) = 18.08, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.75, 95% CI [-6.09, 2.58], t(96) = -0.79, p = 0.428; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.28])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-2.28, 2.55], t(96) = 0.11, p = 0.911; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.28])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-3.34, 3.40], t(96) = 0.02, p = 0.986; Std. beta = 3.25e-03, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.37])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_agency

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.68 (95% CI [12.04, 15.32], t(96) = 16.34, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.35, 95% CI [-0.98, 3.69], t(96) = 1.13, p = 0.256; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.76])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-1.36, 1.74], t(96) = 0.24, p = 0.811; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.36])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-1.72, 2.62], t(96) = 0.40, p = 0.687; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.54])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_pathway

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.81) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.09 (95% CI [14.78, 17.40], t(96) = 24.08, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.97, 95% CI [-0.89, 2.84], t(96) = 1.02, p = 0.307; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.75])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.49, 95% CI [-0.62, 1.60], t(96) = 0.86, p = 0.389; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.42])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.65, 95% CI [-2.20, 0.90], t(96) = -0.82, p = 0.412; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.24])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.82) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.76 (95% CI [26.99, 32.54], t(96) = 21.04, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.33, 95% CI [-1.62, 6.28], t(96) = 1.15, p = 0.248; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.77])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.64, 95% CI [-1.71, 2.98], t(96) = 0.53, p = 0.595; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.37])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-3.42, 3.13], t(96) = -0.09, p = 0.931; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.39])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

esteem

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is moderate (conditional R2 = 0.19) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.76 (95% CI [12.30, 13.23], t(96) = 53.42, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-0.92, 0.42], t(96) = -0.73, p = 0.464; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.30])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.48, 1.03], t(96) = 0.71, p = 0.479; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.75])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-1.10, 1.03], t(96) = -0.06, p = 0.949; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.80, 0.75])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_search

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.55) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.43e-04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.85 (95% CI [13.70, 16.01], t(96) = 25.20, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-1.59, 1.70], t(96) = 0.07, p = 0.947; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.51])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-1.59, 1.32], t(96) = -0.18, p = 0.856; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.39])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-2.06, 2.02], t(96) = -0.02, p = 0.988; Std. beta = -4.79e-03, 95% CI [-0.61, 0.60])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_presence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.61) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.85e-04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.38 (95% CI [12.01, 14.75], t(96) = 19.14, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-1.79, 2.12], t(96) = 0.16, p = 0.870; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.53])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-1.54, 1.72], t(96) = 0.10, p = 0.917; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.43])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-2.29, 2.27], t(96) = -8.70e-03, p = 0.993; Std. beta = -2.52e-03, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.57])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.59) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.62e-04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.24 (95% CI [25.93, 30.54], t(96) = 24.05, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-3.06, 3.50], t(96) = 0.13, p = 0.896; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.52])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-2.84, 2.72], t(96) = -0.04, p = 0.966; Std. beta = -8.90e-03, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.40])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-3.92, 3.86], t(96) = -0.01, p = 0.990; Std. beta = -3.87e-03, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.57])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

empower

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.98e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.03 (95% CI [17.68, 20.38], t(96) = 27.63, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.94, 95% CI [-0.98, 2.86], t(96) = 0.96, p = 0.338; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.72])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-1.10, 1.46], t(96) = 0.28, p = 0.782; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.36])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.90, 95% CI [-2.69, 0.88], t(96) = -0.99, p = 0.321; Std. beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.67, 0.22])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_resistance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.44) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.26 (95% CI [13.40, 15.13], t(96) = 32.18, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.64, 95% CI [-0.59, 1.88], t(96) = 1.02, p = 0.308; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.73])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-0.75, 1.68], t(96) = 0.74, p = 0.457; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.65])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.64, 95% CI [-2.34, 1.06], t(96) = -0.74, p = 0.461; Std. beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-0.91, 0.41])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_discrimation

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.07. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.38 (95% CI [11.31, 13.45], t(96) = 22.64, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -2.02, 95% CI [-3.55, -0.49], t(96) = -2.59, p = 0.010; Std. beta = -0.62, 95% CI [-1.09, -0.15])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.90, 95% CI [-1.96, 0.17], t(96) = -1.65, p = 0.099; Std. beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.05])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.46, 95% CI [-0.03, 2.95], t(96) = 1.92, p = 0.055; Std. beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-9.15e-03, 0.91])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_affective

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.81) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.74 (95% CI [9.48, 11.99], t(96) = 16.81, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.31, 95% CI [-3.09, 0.47], t(96) = -1.44, p = 0.150; Std. beta = -0.34, 95% CI [-0.81, 0.12])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-1.16, 1.01], t(96) = -0.14, p = 0.892; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.26])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.76, 95% CI [-2.28, 0.75], t(96) = -0.99, p = 0.323; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.20])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_behavior

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.65 (95% CI [9.36, 11.93], t(96) = 16.23, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.71, 95% CI [-3.54, 0.12], t(96) = -1.83, p = 0.068; Std. beta = -0.44, 95% CI [-0.90, 0.03])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-1.34, 1.11], t(96) = -0.18, p = 0.858; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.28])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.57, 95% CI [-2.28, 1.15], t(96) = -0.65, p = 0.517; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.29])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_cognitive

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.83) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.79 (95% CI [7.45, 10.13], t(96) = 12.87, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.92, 95% CI [-2.82, 0.99], t(96) = -0.94, p = 0.347; Std. beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.72, 0.25])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.87, 95% CI [-0.24, 1.97], t(96) = 1.54, p = 0.124; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.50])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.64, 95% CI [-3.18, -0.10], t(96) = -2.08, p = 0.037; Std. beta = -0.42, 95% CI [-0.81, -0.02])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.85) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 30.18 (95% CI [26.59, 33.76], t(96) = 16.49, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.93, 95% CI [-9.04, 1.18], t(96) = -1.51, p = 0.131; Std. beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-0.83, 0.11])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.77, 95% CI [-2.07, 3.61], t(96) = 0.53, p = 0.593; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.33])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.05, 95% CI [-7.02, 0.91], t(96) = -1.51, p = 0.131; Std. beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.08])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

Likelihood ratio tests

outcome

model

npar

AIC

BIC

logLik

deviance

Chisq

Df

p

recovery_stage_a

null

3

332.198

340.073

-163.099

326.198

recovery_stage_a

random

6

335.869

351.619

-161.934

323.869

2.330

3

0.507

recovery_stage_b

null

3

488.645

496.520

-241.323

482.645

recovery_stage_b

random

6

493.574

509.324

-240.787

481.574

1.071

3

0.784

ras_confidence

null

3

599.723

607.598

-296.862

593.723

ras_confidence

random

6

603.705

619.455

-295.852

591.705

2.019

3

0.569

ras_willingness

null

3

409.722

417.597

-201.861

403.722

ras_willingness

random

6

408.910

424.660

-198.455

396.910

6.812

3

0.078

ras_goal

null

3

509.341

517.216

-251.671

503.341

ras_goal

random

6

512.394

528.144

-250.197

500.394

2.947

3

0.400

ras_reliance

null

3

474.633

482.508

-234.316

468.633

ras_reliance

random

6

473.362

489.112

-230.681

461.362

7.270

3

0.064

ras_domination

null

3

446.090

453.965

-220.045

440.090

ras_domination

random

6

447.609

463.358

-217.804

435.609

4.481

3

0.214

symptom

null

3

710.259

718.133

-352.129

704.259

symptom

random

6

715.119

730.869

-351.560

703.119

1.140

3

0.768

slof_work

null

3

578.526

586.401

-286.263

572.526

slof_work

random

6

580.081

595.831

-284.041

568.081

4.445

3

0.217

slof_relationship

null

3

627.487

635.361

-310.743

621.487

slof_relationship

random

6

630.433

646.183

-309.216

618.433

3.054

3

0.383

satisfaction

null

3

669.143

677.018

-331.572

663.143

satisfaction

random

6

671.631

687.380

-329.815

659.631

3.512

3

0.319

mhc_emotional

null

3

533.244

541.119

-263.622

527.244

mhc_emotional

random

6

536.974

552.724

-262.487

524.974

2.271

3

0.518

mhc_social

null

3

613.109

620.984

-303.555

607.109

mhc_social

random

6

617.200

632.950

-302.600

605.200

1.909

3

0.591

mhc_psychological

null

3

641.258

649.133

-317.629

635.258

mhc_psychological

random

6

645.432

661.182

-316.716

633.432

1.825

3

0.609

resilisnce

null

3

567.774

575.649

-280.887

561.774

resilisnce

random

6

571.971

587.721

-279.985

559.971

1.803

3

0.614

social_provision

null

3

489.367

497.242

-241.684

483.367

social_provision

random

6

492.735

508.485

-240.368

480.735

2.632

3

0.452

els_value_living

null

3

489.673

497.548

-241.837

483.673

els_value_living

random

6

491.918

507.668

-239.959

479.918

3.755

3

0.289

els_life_fulfill

null

3

503.592

511.467

-248.796

497.592

els_life_fulfill

random

6

499.859

515.609

-243.930

487.859

9.733

3

0.021

els

null

3

611.702

619.577

-302.851

605.702

els

random

6

609.518

625.268

-298.759

597.518

8.184

3

0.042

social_connect

null

3

699.677

707.552

-346.838

693.677

social_connect

random

6

704.972

720.721

-346.486

692.972

0.705

3

0.872

shs_agency

null

3

586.935

594.810

-290.467

580.935

shs_agency

random

6

590.469

606.219

-289.234

578.469

2.466

3

0.481

shs_pathway

null

3

532.716

540.591

-263.358

526.716

shs_pathway

random

6

537.100

552.850

-262.550

525.100

1.616

3

0.656

shs

null

3

685.988

693.863

-339.994

679.988

shs

random

6

690.108

705.858

-339.054

678.108

1.880

3

0.598

esteem

null

3

359.651

367.526

-176.825

353.651

esteem

random

6

363.935

379.685

-175.968

351.935

1.715

3

0.634

mlq_search

null

3

530.662

538.537

-262.331

524.662

mlq_search

random

6

536.577

552.326

-262.288

524.577

0.085

3

0.994

mlq_presence

null

3

561.914

569.789

-277.957

555.914

mlq_presence

random

6

567.862

583.612

-277.931

555.862

0.052

3

0.997

mlq

null

3

668.679

676.554

-331.340

662.679

mlq

random

6

674.654

690.403

-331.327

662.654

0.025

3

0.999

empower

null

3

546.497

554.372

-270.249

540.497

empower

random

6

550.542

566.292

-269.271

538.542

1.955

3

0.582

ismi_resistance

null

3

479.219

487.094

-236.609

473.219

ismi_resistance

random

6

483.924

499.674

-235.962

471.924

1.295

3

0.730

ismi_discrimation

null

3

509.223

517.098

-251.612

503.223

ismi_discrimation

random

6

506.750

522.500

-247.375

494.750

8.473

3

0.037

sss_affective

null

3

529.062

536.936

-261.531

523.062

sss_affective

random

6

529.558

545.308

-258.779

517.558

5.503

3

0.138

sss_behavior

null

3

540.779

548.654

-267.390

534.779

sss_behavior

random

6

541.156

556.906

-264.578

529.156

5.623

3

0.131

sss_cognitive

null

3

540.252

548.127

-267.126

534.252

sss_cognitive

random

6

539.962

555.712

-263.981

527.962

6.290

3

0.098

sss

null

3

738.637

746.512

-366.319

732.637

sss

random

6

738.159

753.909

-363.080

726.159

6.478

3

0.091

Post hoc analysis

Table

outcome

time

control

treatment

between

n

estimate

within es

n

estimate

within es

p

es

recovery_stage_a

1st

34

3.18 ± 1.23

33

3.15 ± 1.23

0.934

0.024

recovery_stage_a

2nd

17

3.48 ± 1.21

-0.292

18

3.52 ± 1.22

-0.362

0.911

-0.045

recovery_stage_b

1st

34

17.76 ± 2.72

33

18.06 ± 2.72

0.657

-0.146

recovery_stage_b

2nd

17

17.73 ± 2.61

0.019

18

18.50 ± 2.62

-0.218

0.381

-0.383

ras_confidence

1st

34

29.56 ± 5.04

33

30.97 ± 5.04

0.256

-0.513

ras_confidence

2nd

17

29.94 ± 4.40

-0.137

18

31.45 ± 4.46

-0.175

0.314

-0.550

ras_willingness

1st

34

11.85 ± 1.99

33

12.21 ± 1.99

0.462

-0.360

ras_willingness

2nd

17

11.05 ± 1.69

0.801

18

12.03 ± 1.72

0.178

0.093

-0.982

ras_goal

1st

34

17.41 ± 3.17

33

17.55 ± 3.17

0.863

-0.073

ras_goal

2nd

17

16.69 ± 2.81

0.395

18

18.12 ± 2.85

-0.314

0.137

-0.782

ras_reliance

1st

34

12.88 ± 2.81

33

13.52 ± 2.81

0.360

-0.495

ras_reliance

2nd

17

13.12 ± 2.33

-0.187

18

14.48 ± 2.38

-0.755

0.091

-1.063

ras_domination

1st

34

10.44 ± 2.19

33

9.55 ± 2.19

0.099

0.578

ras_domination

2nd

17

10.04 ± 2.07

0.256

18

10.33 ± 2.08

-0.505

0.686

-0.183

symptom

1st

34

31.26 ± 9.93

33

29.67 ± 9.93

0.512

0.454

symptom

2nd

17

30.77 ± 7.82

0.139

18

28.91 ± 8.03

0.215

0.489

0.529

slof_work

1st

34

22.32 ± 4.87

33

22.33 ± 4.87

0.993

-0.005

slof_work

2nd

17

21.86 ± 3.96

0.230

18

21.01 ± 4.05

0.654

0.532

0.419

slof_relationship

1st

34

25.09 ± 5.97

33

26.00 ± 5.97

0.534

-0.319

slof_relationship

2nd

17

23.73 ± 5.02

0.473

18

25.34 ± 5.12

0.231

0.352

-0.561

satisfaction

1st

34

18.97 ± 6.93

33

22.06 ± 6.93

0.072

-0.775

satisfaction

2nd

17

19.76 ± 6.14

-0.198

18

21.22 ± 6.22

0.210

0.486

-0.367

mhc_emotional

1st

34

10.74 ± 3.79

33

11.61 ± 3.79

0.350

-0.485

mhc_emotional

2nd

17

11.26 ± 3.18

-0.292

18

11.01 ± 3.24

0.333

0.818

0.139

mhc_social

1st

34

14.94 ± 5.35

33

14.42 ± 5.35

0.694

0.173

mhc_social

2nd

17

16.05 ± 4.70

-0.373

18

14.19 ± 4.76

0.080

0.246

0.625

mhc_psychological

1st

34

21.53 ± 6.22

33

22.52 ± 6.22

0.519

-0.296

mhc_psychological

2nd

17

22.23 ± 5.40

-0.210

18

21.30 ± 5.48

0.365

0.614

0.279

resilisnce

1st

34

16.21 ± 4.41

33

16.97 ± 4.41

0.480

-0.341

resilisnce

2nd

17

16.55 ± 3.77

-0.156

18

17.63 ± 3.83

-0.295

0.404

-0.480

social_provision

1st

34

13.24 ± 2.91

33

14.12 ± 2.91

0.217

-0.547

social_provision

2nd

17

12.85 ± 2.55

0.239

18

13.92 ± 2.59

0.124

0.220

-0.662

els_value_living

1st

34

16.62 ± 2.96

33

17.91 ± 2.96

0.078

-0.840

els_value_living

2nd

17

17.03 ± 2.54

-0.269

18

17.99 ± 2.58

-0.053

0.271

-0.624

els_life_fulfill

1st

34

11.79 ± 3.07

33

13.82 ± 3.07

0.009

-1.261

els_life_fulfill

2nd

17

12.77 ± 2.64

-0.605

18

14.02 ± 2.68

-0.125

0.167

-0.781

els

1st

34

28.41 ± 5.38

33

31.73 ± 5.38

0.014

-1.280

els

2nd

17

29.74 ± 4.53

-0.512

18

32.03 ± 4.62

-0.115

0.143

-0.883

social_connect

1st

34

28.09 ± 9.06

33

26.33 ± 9.06

0.431

0.478

social_connect

2nd

17

28.23 ± 7.32

-0.038

18

26.50 ± 7.50

-0.046

0.493

0.470

shs_agency

1st

34

13.68 ± 4.88

33

15.03 ± 4.88

0.260

-0.568

shs_agency

2nd

17

13.87 ± 4.13

-0.079

18

15.67 ± 4.20

-0.267

0.204

-0.755

shs_pathway

1st

34

16.09 ± 3.90

33

17.06 ± 3.90

0.311

-0.576

shs_pathway

2nd

17

16.58 ± 3.20

-0.289

18

16.90 ± 3.27

0.095

0.767

-0.192

shs

1st

34

29.76 ± 8.25

33

32.09 ± 8.25

0.252

-0.650

shs

2nd

17

30.40 ± 6.77

-0.178

18

32.58 ± 6.91

-0.138

0.348

-0.610

esteem

1st

34

12.76 ± 1.39

33

12.52 ± 1.39

0.465

0.197

esteem

2nd

17

13.04 ± 1.40

-0.216

18

12.75 ± 1.40

-0.189

0.550

0.225

mlq_search

1st

34

14.85 ± 3.44

33

14.91 ± 3.44

0.947

-0.024

mlq_search

2nd

17

14.72 ± 3.19

0.059

18

14.76 ± 3.21

0.066

0.971

-0.017

mlq_presence

1st

34

13.38 ± 4.08

33

13.55 ± 4.08

0.870

-0.064

mlq_presence

2nd

17

13.47 ± 3.70

-0.034

18

13.62 ± 3.74

-0.030

0.903

-0.060

mlq

1st

34

28.24 ± 6.85

33

28.45 ± 6.85

0.896

-0.050

mlq

2nd

17

28.18 ± 6.26

0.014

18

28.37 ± 6.31

0.020

0.928

-0.044

empower

1st

34

19.03 ± 4.02

33

19.97 ± 4.02

0.341

-0.480

empower

2nd

17

19.21 ± 3.39

-0.092

18

19.25 ± 3.45

0.369

0.974

-0.019

ismi_resistance

1st

34

14.26 ± 2.58

33

14.91 ± 2.58

0.310

-0.330

ismi_resistance

2nd

17

14.73 ± 2.49

-0.236

18

14.73 ± 2.50

0.091

0.995

-0.003

ismi_discrimation

1st

34

12.38 ± 3.19

33

10.36 ± 3.19

0.012

1.230

ismi_discrimation

2nd

17

11.49 ± 2.73

0.547

18

10.93 ± 2.78

-0.343

0.550

0.341

sss_affective

1st

34

10.74 ± 3.72

33

9.42 ± 3.72

0.154

0.791

sss_affective

2nd

17

10.66 ± 3.07

0.045

18

8.58 ± 3.14

0.507

0.051

1.252

sss_behavior

1st

34

10.65 ± 3.82

33

8.94 ± 3.82

0.072

0.907

sss_behavior

2nd

17

10.53 ± 3.24

0.060

18

8.26 ± 3.30

0.361

0.042

1.208

sss_cognitive

1st

34

8.79 ± 3.99

33

7.88 ± 3.99

0.350

0.545

sss_cognitive

2nd

17

9.66 ± 3.25

-0.515

18

7.11 ± 3.32

0.460

0.024

1.520

sss

1st

34

30.18 ± 10.67

33

26.24 ± 10.67

0.136

0.913

sss

2nd

17

30.95 ± 8.62

-0.179

18

23.96 ± 8.82

0.529

0.020

1.621

Between group

recovery_stage_a

1st

t(92.42) = -0.08, p = 0.934, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-0.62 to 0.57)

2st

t(97.29) = 0.11, p = 0.911, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-0.77 to 0.86)

recovery_stage_b

1st

t(87.17) = 0.45, p = 0.657, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-1.02 to 1.62)

2st

t(97.19) = 0.88, p = 0.381, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-0.98 to 2.53)

ras_confidence

1st

t(76.20) = 1.14, p = 0.256, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (-1.04 to 3.87)

2st

t(97.90) = 1.01, p = 0.314, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-1.46 to 4.49)

ras_willingness

1st

t(74.33) = 0.74, p = 0.462, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.61 to 1.33)

2st

t(97.34) = 1.70, p = 0.093, Cohen d = -0.98, 95% CI (-0.17 to 2.13)

ras_goal

1st

t(77.80) = 0.17, p = 0.863, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.41 to 1.68)

2st

t(98.00) = 1.50, p = 0.137, Cohen d = -0.78, 95% CI (-0.46 to 3.34)

ras_reliance

1st

t(72.51) = 0.92, p = 0.360, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-0.74 to 2.00)

2st

t(95.93) = 1.71, p = 0.091, Cohen d = -1.06, 95% CI (-0.22 to 2.94)

ras_domination

1st

t(84.75) = -1.67, p = 0.099, Cohen d = 0.58, 95% CI (-1.96 to 0.17)

2st

t(97.34) = 0.40, p = 0.686, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-1.11 to 1.68)

symptom

1st

t(69.41) = -0.66, p = 0.512, Cohen d = 0.45, 95% CI (-6.44 to 3.24)

2st

t(89.73) = -0.70, p = 0.489, Cohen d = 0.53, 95% CI (-7.19 to 3.46)

slof_work

1st

t(71.18) = 0.01, p = 0.993, Cohen d = -0.00, 95% CI (-2.36 to 2.38)

2st

t(94.03) = -0.63, p = 0.532, Cohen d = 0.42, 95% CI (-3.54 to 1.84)

slof_relationship

1st

t(73.41) = 0.62, p = 0.534, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-2.00 to 3.82)

2st

t(96.77) = 0.94, p = 0.352, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (-1.80 to 5.01)

satisfaction

1st

t(77.58) = 1.82, p = 0.072, Cohen d = -0.77, 95% CI (-0.28 to 6.46)

2st

t(98.00) = 0.70, p = 0.486, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-2.68 to 5.61)

mhc_emotional

1st

t(73.19) = 0.94, p = 0.350, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-0.98 to 2.72)

2st

t(96.59) = -0.23, p = 0.818, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-2.40 to 1.90)

mhc_social

1st

t(76.77) = -0.40, p = 0.694, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-3.12 to 2.09)

2st

t(97.97) = -1.17, p = 0.246, Cohen d = 0.63, 95% CI (-5.04 to 1.31)

mhc_psychological

1st

t(75.75) = 0.65, p = 0.519, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-2.04 to 4.01)

2st

t(97.82) = -0.51, p = 0.614, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-4.58 to 2.72)

resilisnce

1st

t(74.55) = 0.71, p = 0.480, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-1.38 to 2.91)

2st

t(97.44) = 0.84, p = 0.404, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-1.47 to 3.62)

social_provision

1st

t(76.71) = 1.25, p = 0.217, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-0.53 to 2.30)

2st

t(97.96) = 1.23, p = 0.220, Cohen d = -0.66, 95% CI (-0.65 to 2.80)

els_value_living

1st

t(75.07) = 1.79, p = 0.078, Cohen d = -0.84, 95% CI (-0.15 to 2.73)

2st

t(97.64) = 1.11, p = 0.271, Cohen d = -0.62, 95% CI (-0.76 to 2.68)

els_life_fulfill

1st

t(75.21) = 2.70, p = 0.009, Cohen d = -1.26, 95% CI (0.53 to 3.52)

2st

t(97.68) = 1.39, p = 0.167, Cohen d = -0.78, 95% CI (-0.53 to 3.04)

els

1st

t(73.49) = 2.52, p = 0.014, Cohen d = -1.28, 95% CI (0.69 to 5.94)

2st

t(96.82) = 1.48, p = 0.143, Cohen d = -0.88, 95% CI (-0.78 to 5.36)

social_connect

1st

t(70.85) = -0.79, p = 0.431, Cohen d = 0.48, 95% CI (-6.17 to 2.66)

2st

t(93.41) = -0.69, p = 0.493, Cohen d = 0.47, 95% CI (-6.70 to 3.25)

shs_agency

1st

t(73.78) = 1.13, p = 0.260, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (-1.02 to 3.73)

2st

t(97.03) = 1.28, p = 0.204, Cohen d = -0.75, 95% CI (-0.99 to 4.59)

shs_pathway

1st

t(71.77) = 1.02, p = 0.311, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (-0.93 to 2.87)

2st

t(94.99) = 0.30, p = 0.767, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-1.84 to 2.49)

shs

1st

t(71.78) = 1.15, p = 0.252, Cohen d = -0.65, 95% CI (-1.69 to 6.34)

2st

t(95.00) = 0.94, p = 0.348, Cohen d = -0.61, 95% CI (-2.41 to 6.77)

esteem

1st

t(96.03) = -0.73, p = 0.465, Cohen d = 0.20, 95% CI (-0.93 to 0.43)

2st

t(97.69) = -0.60, p = 0.550, Cohen d = 0.22, 95% CI (-1.22 to 0.66)

mlq_search

1st

t(82.61) = 0.07, p = 0.947, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-1.61 to 1.73)

2st

t(97.56) = 0.04, p = 0.971, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-2.11 to 2.19)

mlq_presence

1st

t(80.18) = 0.16, p = 0.870, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-1.82 to 2.15)

2st

t(97.84) = 0.12, p = 0.903, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-2.34 to 2.65)

mlq

1st

t(80.82) = 0.13, p = 0.896, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-3.11 to 3.55)

2st

t(97.77) = 0.09, p = 0.928, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-4.03 to 4.41)

empower

1st

t(73.74) = 0.96, p = 0.341, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-1.02 to 2.90)

2st

t(97.00) = 0.03, p = 0.974, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-2.26 to 2.34)

ismi_resistance

1st

t(87.70) = 1.02, p = 0.310, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.61 to 1.90)

2st

t(97.17) = 0.01, p = 0.995, Cohen d = -0.00, 95% CI (-1.67 to 1.68)

ismi_discrimation

1st

t(74.85) = -2.59, p = 0.012, Cohen d = 1.23, 95% CI (-3.57 to -0.47)

2st

t(97.56) = -0.60, p = 0.550, Cohen d = 0.34, 95% CI (-2.41 to 1.29)

sss_affective

1st

t(72.17) = -1.44, p = 0.154, Cohen d = 0.79, 95% CI (-3.13 to 0.50)

2st

t(95.53) = -1.98, p = 0.051, Cohen d = 1.25, 95% CI (-4.16 to 0.01)

sss_behavior

1st

t(73.93) = -1.83, p = 0.072, Cohen d = 0.91, 95% CI (-3.57 to 0.15)

2st

t(97.12) = -2.06, p = 0.042, Cohen d = 1.21, 95% CI (-4.47 to -0.08)

sss_cognitive

1st

t(71.37) = -0.94, p = 0.350, Cohen d = 0.54, 95% CI (-2.86 to 1.03)

2st

t(94.37) = -2.30, p = 0.024, Cohen d = 1.52, 95% CI (-4.76 to -0.35)

sss

1st

t(70.82) = -1.51, p = 0.136, Cohen d = 0.91, 95% CI (-9.13 to 1.26)

2st

t(93.35) = -2.37, p = 0.020, Cohen d = 1.62, 95% CI (-12.84 to -1.13)

Within treatment group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(47.77) = 1.17, p = 0.494, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.27 to 1.01)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(44.12) = 0.69, p = 0.983, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.84 to 1.73)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(38.23) = 0.54, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-1.32 to 2.28)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(37.32) = -0.55, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-0.84 to 0.48)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(39.01) = 0.98, p = 0.671, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.62 to 1.78)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(36.46) = 2.31, p = 0.053, Cohen d = -0.75, 95% CI (0.12 to 1.81)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(42.69) = 1.60, p = 0.236, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-0.21 to 1.77)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(35.02) = -0.65, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.21, 95% CI (-3.11 to 1.60)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(35.84) = -1.99, p = 0.108, Cohen d = 0.65, 95% CI (-2.67 to 0.02)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(36.89) = -0.71, p = 0.964, Cohen d = 0.23, 95% CI (-2.55 to 1.23)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(38.90) = -0.65, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.21, 95% CI (-3.44 to 1.76)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(36.78) = -1.02, p = 0.629, Cohen d = 0.33, 95% CI (-1.78 to 0.59)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(38.50) = -0.25, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-2.19 to 1.72)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(38.00) = -1.13, p = 0.533, Cohen d = 0.37, 95% CI (-3.40 to 0.97)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(37.43) = 0.91, p = 0.740, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.81 to 2.13)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(38.48) = -0.38, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-1.26 to 0.86)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(37.68) = 0.16, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-0.93 to 1.09)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(37.74) = 0.39, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.85 to 1.26)

els

1st vs 2st

t(36.92) = 0.35, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.41 to 2.01)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(35.69) = 0.14, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-2.27 to 2.61)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(37.06) = 0.82, p = 0.837, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.94 to 2.21)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(36.11) = -0.29, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-1.28 to 0.96)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(36.12) = 0.42, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.88 to 2.87)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(51.34) = 0.62, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.53 to 1.01)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(41.50) = -0.21, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-1.63 to 1.33)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(40.22) = 0.09, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-1.58 to 1.73)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(40.55) = -0.06, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-2.91 to 2.73)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(37.04) = -1.13, p = 0.529, Cohen d = 0.37, 95% CI (-2.01 to 0.57)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(44.44) = -0.29, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-1.41 to 1.05)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(37.57) = 1.05, p = 0.596, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.52 to 1.64)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(36.30) = -1.55, p = 0.260, Cohen d = 0.51, 95% CI (-1.94 to 0.26)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(37.13) = -1.11, p = 0.550, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-1.92 to 0.56)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(35.93) = -1.40, p = 0.338, Cohen d = 0.46, 95% CI (-1.89 to 0.34)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(35.67) = -1.61, p = 0.231, Cohen d = 0.53, 95% CI (-5.15 to 0.59)

Within control group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(49.50) = 0.93, p = 0.716, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.35 to 0.95)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(45.40) = -0.06, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-1.35 to 1.27)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(38.79) = 0.41, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.47 to 2.23)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(37.79) = -2.40, p = 0.043, Cohen d = 0.80, 95% CI (-1.47 to -0.13)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(39.67) = -1.20, p = 0.478, Cohen d = 0.39, 95% CI (-1.95 to 0.50)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(36.83) = 0.56, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.63 to 1.11)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(43.79) = -0.79, p = 0.866, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-1.41 to 0.61)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(35.22) = -0.41, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-2.91 to 1.93)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(36.13) = -0.68, p = 0.999, Cohen d = 0.23, 95% CI (-1.85 to 0.92)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(37.30) = -1.41, p = 0.331, Cohen d = 0.47, 95% CI (-3.29 to 0.59)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(39.55) = 0.60, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-1.88 to 3.46)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(37.18) = 0.87, p = 0.778, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.69 to 1.74)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(39.11) = 1.12, p = 0.535, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-0.89 to 3.12)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(38.55) = 0.63, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-1.54 to 2.94)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(37.91) = 0.47, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-1.16 to 1.86)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(39.07) = -0.72, p = 0.950, Cohen d = 0.24, 95% CI (-1.47 to 0.70)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(38.18) = 0.81, p = 0.849, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.62 to 1.45)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(38.25) = 1.82, p = 0.154, Cohen d = -0.61, 95% CI (-0.11 to 2.05)

els

1st vs 2st

t(37.34) = 1.53, p = 0.268, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (-0.43 to 3.08)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(35.97) = 0.11, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-2.37 to 2.65)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(37.49) = 0.24, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-1.42 to 1.80)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(36.44) = 0.86, p = 0.792, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.66 to 1.64)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(36.44) = 0.53, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-1.80 to 3.07)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(53.51) = 0.70, p = 0.974, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.51 to 1.06)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(42.46) = -0.18, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-1.65 to 1.38)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(41.02) = 0.10, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-1.61 to 1.78)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(41.39) = -0.04, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-2.95 to 2.83)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(37.48) = 0.28, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-1.15 to 1.51)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(45.76) = 0.74, p = 0.930, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.80 to 1.72)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(38.06) = -1.64, p = 0.218, Cohen d = 0.55, 95% CI (-2.00 to 0.21)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(36.65) = -0.14, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-1.20 to 1.05)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(37.57) = -0.18, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-1.39 to 1.16)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(36.23) = 1.53, p = 0.269, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-0.28 to 2.01)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(35.95) = 0.53, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-2.17 to 3.72)

Plot

Clinical significance